Petitioner’s challenge to a Specific Plan, which was filed before that plan was adopted, was barred as premature, and its belated attempt to amend its petition after the Specific Plan had been adopted was barred by the statute of limitations. Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 100 Cal. App. 5th 363 (2024).

The Court of Appeal held that a city-developer agreement that ostensibly precluded the City of Oakland from imposing any new impact fees on the project constituted an impermissible infringement of the City's police power. Discovery Builders Inc v City of Oakland, 92 Cal. App. 5th 799 (2023).

Contribution claims brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are not barred by prior environmental litigation if the property at issue and types of claims brought are distinct from previous claims. GP Vincent III v. Estate of Beard, No. 21-16555 (9th. Cir. May 17, 2023).

Concluding that it was a "near certainty" that the Stratford Public Utility District (SPUD) failed to comply with CEQA when it granted an easement for a water pipeline, the appellate court vacated an order denying a preliminary injunction that would have halted construction and operation of the pipeline, and ordered the trial court to reconsider. Tulare Lake Canal Co. v.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the protected speech or petitioning activity on which an anti-SLAPP motion is based must be a target of the suit and not merely an event that triggered claims unrelated to such speech or activity. Durkin v. City and County of San Francisco, 90 Cal.App.5th 643 (2023).

A recent case involving developer Charles Keenan and the City of Palo Alto highlights the importance of strict compliance with Mitigation Fee Act's requirement that findings be made every five years concerning unexpended fees.

The City of Palm Springs' three-year closure of a public street for installation of a statue was unlawful because the Vehicle Code permits only temporary closure of streets for parades or other short-term events, not multi-year closure for installation of semi-permanent structures. Committee to Relocate Marilyn v. City of Palm Springs, 88 Cal.App.5th 607 (2023).

The court of appeal held that an attorney's actions in filing and prosecuting a meritless challenge to construction of a single-family home supported a claim for malicious prosecution. Jenkins v. Brandt-Hawley, No A162852 (1st Dist., Dec 28, 2022).

A suit seeking to set aside land-use approvals based on an alleged bribery scheme in violation of the Political Reform Act was subject to the 90-day statute of limitations for actions challenging land-use decisions. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of Los Angeles, No. B311144 (2nd Dist., Dec. 14, 2022).

The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that California courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving objections to regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) allocations. City of Coronado v. San Diego Association of Governments, 80 Cal. App. 5th 21 (2022).

The Court of Appeal held that a ruling denying a petition for writ of mandate constitutes the final judgment in the case and triggers the 60-day period for filing an appeal. Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale, 76 Cal.App.5th 43 (2022).

The Court of Appeal ruled that a suit concerning an affordable housing fee that plaintiff had agreed to pay two decades earlier was still timely because the 90-day limitations period under the Subdivision Map Act did not begin to run until a dispute arose over the interpretation of provisions in the affordable housing agreement. Schmeir v. City of Berkeley, 76 Cal. App.

The court of appeal held that, in an action against the State Water Resources Control Board and regional water quality control boards for violations of the State Board's Nonpoint Source (NPS) Policy and the public trust doctrine for failure to protect against agricultural water pollution from crop irrigation, plaintiffs failed to state claims for which either declaratory or mandamus relief was